From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264762AbUEYNmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264763AbUEYNmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:54 -0400 Received: from bristol.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.130]:64749 "EHLO bristol.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264762AbUEYNmw (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 09:42:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:11:39 -0400 From: Ben Collins To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Message-ID: <20040525131139.GW1286@phunnypharm.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've got a question about this. A lot of times I get patches that are just one/two-liners and the explanation is somewhat self-explantory, etc. Say the patch comes to me from some patch collection maintainer, who got it from the original author. So the original person never put a Signed-off-by, and neither did the person who sent me the patch, should I still add the eplicit Signed-off-by's to the patch, and add myself, before sending it to you? -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/